Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Hello and Shalom Rella and to all,

To answer Rella's question, that "includes liars in the Lake of Fire" it is talking about a person whose "life-style" is that of lying, deceiving, and that is typical of many lost people who are without Yeshua

The other comments are interesting, It is a "grey" area, when we do not want to hurt a person's feelings, and tell them something that is not all truth.  We must ask ourselves, what would hurt most, the truth, or lie? or "exaggeration? 

Yeshua told people as it was, plainly, no bones about it, He didn't care whose feelings got hurt, HE was all about the TRUTH. 

One way would be to call someone aside and explain things in a private, gentle manner,

"Look, that shirt really doesn't go with those pants, because, there are different "color matches" now, this shirt would go great with these pants,  because..."

Offer a solution.  My wife is good at picking color combos for me, I don't argue, cause "she Boss lady"
2
     
PARASHAH:  Ekev (as a result)   

DEUT: 7:12-11:25…………ISAIAH 49:14-51:3…………JOHN 7:1-8:59

“Now, O Israel, what does Adonai your Elohim ask of you?  Only to fear Adonai your Elohim, walk in His Ways, Love Him, and serve Him, with all of your heart and all of your soul”  (10:12) 

     I am jumping the gun a little bit, but just “how much do you love God?” that is the question.  We might say, “with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength!” Really? Seriously? Well, if you do, then you should be… or asking yourself the following;

     Following his commandments with all seriousness, and there are a lot more than just 10. (yet we know that not all 613 are for today). “His Ways” are “His Commandments”  That is the reason behind Bible study.  Making the Sabbath and Sundays the most important days of the week to get with God’s people and study, not making any other plans, being in church, or the synagogue all day (if possible, but I doubt it).  Not closing your wallet to give to the poor and needy.

     Do you speak positive words in one breath, and negative words in the other.?  Remember, can a tree produce both good and bad fruit? No, not a biological tree, but a human tree can! And we do it every day,  blessings and curses from the same mouth.  Are you following God’s chosen diet for you in Leviticus 11? It is for your own good health and welfare.

     Are you saying “The Torah commandments are in the past, we don’t need to follow them anymore” then why don’t you go out and steal? Or take someone’s wife? Those commandments are in the Torah!  The Torah/Law was not crucified on the Cross of Calvary, our sins WERE! The curse of sin and death WAS because Yeshua bore it ALL.

     Would you risk your life for another life? Even for a street bum? Are material things very important in your life? Or too important?  Would you risk losing them? Would you give them up to follow the Master?  Do you let anger loose in your life? Or do you have in check?

     Do you look forward to studying HIS word, even if it is not on the Sabbath or Sundays? If yes, then there should be hundreds, or perhaps thousands reading this Parasha now on these forum sites, not just 30 or 40!

    There are many that say “I love God with all my heart” but the fruits don’t jive with the words. I am speaking to myself as well.  It is just something to think about the next time you say;  “I love God with all my heart”   Now let’s get started with this Midrash entitled “Ekev”

     Moshe starts out reminding and giving “Am Israel” assurance that “because ye harken unto these ordinances and keep them, and do them…YHVH shall keep with thee the covenant…. He starts out on a positive note; however, we know that history reveals that Israel did NOT keep the covenant, but broke the covenant, and went after strange gods, idolatry, etc.  Perhaps this was an incentive to obey, and they would reap the blessings of obedience…IF…they would obey.

     Many parts of this Parashah are a repetition of the words; “if” and “then”.  We are talking about a conditional covenant.  ALL covenants are conditional.  The word “life” itself contains the word “if” right in the middle.  We can sum up “life” as many “conditional experiences” depending on how we react to them; “if” we react in one way, “then” the result will follow, either negative or positive.  Even the covenant of salvation which is for ALL mankind is “conditional” “If” we repent and accept Yeshua as our Redeemer and LORD, “then” we will receive the gift of salvation which follows.  Salvation is a gift for all mankind, yet we must receive it through a repentant and contrite heart, a willingness to turn “Shoov” and follow the Master.  Our master is like our father who loves his children very much.

     The father promises his son that if the son would obey the rules of the house, do his homework on time, help take out the garbage, clean the bathroom, help mom with the dishes…THEN…the father would take the son camping during the summer.  It is all about “rewards” for “obedience” 

     Is this any different for us? I would say not.  Rewards for obedience has nothing to do with our salvation experience.  Our salvation is based on FAITH and FAITH ONLY, and not on our obedience to mitzvoth, yet obedience to the Torah comes as a result of our relationship with Yeshua HaMashiach.  Even he said; “If you love me, obey my commandments.  Yes, he gave some new ones unlike those written down by Moshe, who received them from G-d on Mt. Sinai.  Yet even back then, Yeshua was with the Father during the giving of the Ten Commandments, and later, the rest of the 603 that were given during the 40-day period of being with God on Har Sinai.  So, did Yeshua give us ALL the mitzvoth? I would have to say YES.

     More than once Moshe reminds the people to “follow and obey” the commandments, to “Hear” (Shema) the word “Shema” is related to “Shamar” which is to “guard”.  So, to “Shema” the commandments of Adonai, is to “remember, observe, put into action, and guard, not only “hear and listen to”.  We must always remember that obedience to the commandments of Adonai, the ones that can be observed literally today, has nothing to do with our salvation experience.  We are saved, secure, forever, by the blood of Yeshua, by his once-only sacrifice.  Obedience to the Torah commandments comes as a “result of” our family relationship with Adonai, as obedient children, we will “want to” do as our father tells us to do, for our own good, to be a Holy, set-apart people.

     An interesting verse is 8:1 “All the COMMANDMENT which I command thee this day shall yet observe to do, the ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land….”  in the Hebrew it is “Kol ha Mitzvah” it is written in the singular and not in the plural! But shouldn’t it be “mitzvoth” (commandments)? One would think so, but it IS in the SINGULAR, but why? The sages’ comment that all the commandments can be summed up into ONE commandment; “Love YHVH thy God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your might, and strength” and when we do love Adonai in this way, we will follow all the rest of the commandments, including loving our neighbor as ourselves.

    Chap 9:4…. Moshe reminds the people that it isn’t because they are a “righteous” nation that God is allowing Am Israel to move into the land Canaan, conquer the pagan inhabitants and take possession, rather it is because of those nations’ “unrighteousness” and “wickedness” that is the reason.  Just like the time of the flood, the wicked world was destroyed and Noach and his family were saved, yet Noach had his problems too, his righteousness had flaws too, just like ALL of us.  Our holiness is full of “holes”, and our salvation is because our God is a merciful God and he just chose to love us, just because HE is a LOVING and MERCIFUL GOD, and not that we deserve salvation.   We can also state that the land of Canaan was being given to the Israelites because of the promise that YHVH made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob too.  YHVH never breaks his promises.

     Chap 11, Moshe gives an order; “Therefore, thou shall love YHVH thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his ordinances and his commandments ALWAYS! Moshe cannot say this enough, like a father tells his children, “obey the rules, obey the rules, obey the rules” it is for their own good.  Unfortunately, the admonition of obedience for many people goes in one ear and out the other.
 
     We can also see in various occasions that Moshe intercedes before “Am Yisrael” before Adonai.  He reminds them of their sin with the golden calf, and how Adonai wanted to destroy Israel, and even Aaron, for permitting the people to do such a thing.  Yet Moshe convinces Adonai to give Israel and Aaron another chance…and then another…and then…Could we go on?  Does not that describe all of us?  Moshe here is a type of Mashiach who intercedes for his people, as Yeshua intercedes on our behalf before the Father.

     We all continue to have a rebellious heart, many times walking in the flesh, disobeying His Mitzvoth, yet we have life, we are not struck down, He forgives our trespasses through Yeshua, whose blood paid for all of our sins, past, present, and future.  We just have to have discipline and learn to walk in His commandments, trusting Him as Messiah and LORD.  Trusting in HIM seals the covenant personally, walking in HIS commandments is a result of the first. 
      Let us go forth with a renewed heart, and show our love to God, by learning and obeying his Torah, of course we cannot be Torah observant 100%, but through the power of the Ruach HaKodesh, we can be obedient sons and daughters of Adonai El Elyon, and live a lifestyle that honors HIM.

ISAIAH 49:14-51:3


     Israel cries out “The LORD hath forsaken me and forgotten me” but the prophet through the Holy Spirit assures the people, NO, the LORD has NOT forsaken you.  There is a big difference between, “abandonment, forgetfulness, and chastisement”.  The fact that YHVH has punished his people does not mean that He has abandoned Israel.  When a father chastises his son or daughter, does that mean he no longer loves him or her? Does he cast them out of the house? Or say, “you are no longer my son or daughter?” No, of course not, Scripture tells us that a father who loves his children will discipline them.

  We can say the same with YHVH and “Am Israel” He loves his people, and so, HE will discipline them.  Yes, he cast them out of the land, but in goyim lands, they continued to live and spread the teaching of the ONE GOD (Echad) who is Adonai-Elohim-Yeshuah.  We are loved by our heavenly father, even when it hurts.

JOHN 7:1-8:59 


     Some are a bit confused when Yeshua says to his brothers, “You guys go up to Yerushalayim to Sukkot, I will not YET go up.  He did NOT LIE, (as some critics try to say).  He was planning to go up, but not at that time.  Remember that the celebration of Sukkot (Tabernacles) is a 7-day celebration, culminating on the 8th day, “Hoshanah Raba” it is possible that his brothers and his talmidim went during the beginning of the festivities, and Yeshua waited until the end, the 8th day.

     It was on the 8th day that the priests brought up water from the pool of Siloam, and Yeshua took this opportunity to say to the people; “If anyone is thirsty, let him keep coming to me and drink, whoever puts his trust in me, as the scripture says, rivers of living water will flow from his inmost being”

     We can remember the time when “B’nei Israel” (the children of Israel) were in the desert, and they got water from a ROCK.  The ROCK symbolizes Yeshua, who is the ROCK of ages and the LIVING water.  Water flowed from the rock so that the Israelites and the cattle could drink as much as they wanted.
 
     The water that Yeshua talks about is our inner life through a renewed spirit, remember that He also told the woman of Samaria the same thing.  It was to her that he revealed himself as Mashiach openly. So, when we read the WORD of God, listen to music that praises HIM, we are receiving “living water”

 

Shabbat Shalom     Rabbi Ben Avraham
3
Feds Seize 19,888 Fake State Driver Licenses (Made in China) in Chicago O'Hare Airport - ALL Registered to Vote -- ALL Democrat

https://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/en/news-page/news-nation/feds-seize-19-888-fake-state-driver-licenses-from-china-in-chicago-o-hare-airport-all-registered-to-vote-all-democrat

4
Christian Politics Forum / Re: Because voting by mail is so secure-
« Last post by Rella on Yesterday at 19:34:29 »

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/one-five-mail-ballots-rejected-botched-nyc-primary-n1236143?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

The dems simply do not care.

They are counting on the fact that if there are issues they can delay the results and I am sure they will figure how to make that work to increase their totals.

In the primaries, my county sent mom and I mail in ballots.

We did not...we went in person.... but we had to request them... just like an absentee ballot.

When they came it wasnotable there were no issues that were on the one in person.

But once you filled it out, you were to put it in the supplied envelope and and of us had a different bar code. I assume that would have been scanned for ID purposes?

But about two weeks before election a friend called. That had gotten one in the mail and had never requested it. She was worried she could not vote in person because of it. She could and did.

But the county next to us, not only mailed out the ballots to all voters (?) cause one lady said she got hers, filled it out, and sent it back...and then they sent her another. So they must have double sent ballots... to all?

She called the election officials and said not to worry. If she somehow sent the 2nd ballot back, it would be caught when it was scanned and only one would count ::whistle::

This is a strong democrat county.

To make it so most would mail their ballots back, a bordering township,to mine,
actually only had one polling place for the entire township.... the rest were closed.

The population for that township is a little over 32,000. ::pondering::

All of our polling places were open here. and our population is alittle more then 22,000. But we are a strong Republican Township
5
Seventh Day Adventist Forum / Re: Roman politics
« Last post by Amo on Yesterday at 19:05:15 »
https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/are-the-holy-see-and-the-united-nations-too-close-for-comfort

Quoted article below from link above. Emphasis is mine.

Quote
Are the Holy See and the United Nations Too Close for Comfort?

NEWS ANALYSIS: The relationship has come under closer scrutiny of late.

Edward Pentin

VATICAN CITY —  When Pope Francis received in private audience United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in December, the U.N. chief trumpeted the fact that the Holy See’s concerns “coincide with the core values” of the United Nations Charter.

These values consisted of reaffirming the “dignity and worth of the human person,” Guterres said in a statement, especially with regards to protecting the planet.

The Holy See’s communiqué was similar, focusing on peace, the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), climate change and migration. Neither statement mentioned the unborn, despite the SDGs (17 points for a sustainable future specifying 169 targets to be reached by 2030) and U.N. institutions as a whole fervently promoting abortion and contraception. The omission was just one example of the ever closer alliance between the U.N. and the Holy See that critics say is growing at the expense of any mention of the Church’s nonnegotiable teaching.

Most recently, the Vatican has offered largely uncritical support of the SDGs and hosted its proponents, embarked on regular collaboration with population-control advocates and U.N.-affiliated organizations notorious for promoting abortion and gender ideology, and promoted “human fraternity,” a U.N.-backed concept that some see as a push toward a one-world religion.

On Feb. 5, the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences will be hosting a conference on “fraternal inclusion” whose keynote speaker will be Jeffrey Sachs, the SDGs’ chief architect and population-control advocate who advised Pope Francis on his 2015 environment encyclical, Laudato Si (Care for Our Common Home). A very regular fixture at the Vatican for the past six years, Sachs is praised there for his vision of a sustainable future while his views on contraception and previous alliance with the radical billionaire abortion promoter George Soros are cast to one side.

The Vatican also appears to be drawing closer to another U.N.-allied non-governmental organization, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which radically advocates contraception in developing countries and which works closely with Sachs. In November, Pope Francis received Melinda Gates in an unpublicized private audience, sources have told the Register. Vatican communications officials and the Gates Foundation declined to confirm or deny whether such a meeting took place.

Cardinal Müller’s Concerns

In short, although Pope Francis’ general view of the U.N. is that it is a “much-needed … global forum for facing global problems,” these collaborations have led to growing criticism that the Holy See’s seeming prioritization of the U.N.’s agenda over nonnegotiable moral issues represents a breach in the Church’s doctrine.

It is “always good” for the Church to cooperate with national and international institutions to pursue “peace, social justice and international understanding” and to fight against “the evils of humanity,” said Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “But, unfortunately, many of the goals of supranational organizations are formulated in opposition to human dignity.”

He told the Register Jan. 29 he was particularly opposed to inviting “promoters of abortion in the form of population control to papal or episcopal commissions,” as it represents a “grave offense against the Gospel and a denial of Christ.” And yet Vatican officials see the Holy See’s current relationship with the U.N. as a worthy advance and an important collaboration and regard the accusation that the Holy See is becoming too involved with the U.N. while ignoring preeminent moral issues as a misunderstanding of the situation.

One source working for the Holy See in relations with the U.N. system and speaking on condition of anonymity told the Register that the Holy See engages with “fierce fidelity” to the Church’s teaching.

“We fight to the end to get as much good as we can,” the source explained, adding that objections are always “clearly articulated.”
 
Bishop Sanchez

U.N.-championed causes such as the environment, poverty and combating human trafficking are all issues “inspired by the magisterium of the popes,” said Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, in Jan. 14 comments to the Register.

The U.N. “follows the magisterium of the popes on these issues,” including the issue of climate change and “not vice versa,” he said.

Bishop Sanchez, whose academy has been at the forefront of collaborating closely on these issues with the U.N. and its affiliates such as Sachs, said he did not know if the Vatican has closer collaboration with the U.N. than in the past. But he recalled how he helped insert a condemnation of modern slavery into the SDGs and said that “references to the pope have increased” under the last two U.N. secretary-generals, Ban Ki-moon and Antonio Guterres. Both took leading roles in battling “climate change and modern slavery,” as outlined in Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si, he said.

Since 1964, the Holy See has been a permanent observer to the U.N., allowing it to play a participatory though non-voting role in the workings of the international body and assign nuncios to the U.N. in both New York and Geneva. Its main motivation is to collaborate for the common good where possible, and popes dating back to St. Paul VI have often spoken appreciatively of the institution.Holy See officials and Church observers insist the Church has never espoused the U.N.’s ideology, but instead taken a two-pronged approach: positively proposing different visions and alternatives rooted in the natural law and revelation and combating ethical and political distortions through its permanent observers and officials.

The Holy See also declines to work with U.N. agencies when their agendas contradict Church teaching in significant ways, and therefore it refuses to work with agencies such as the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) or U.N. Women because of their promotion of abortion and contraception. It has also generally declined to participate with UNICEF because of its recent support for “comprehensive sexual education.”

But in recent comments to the Register, Austin Ruse, the president of the Center for Family and Human Rights, which monitors social-policy debate at the U.N., warned that the Holy See should be aware that most U.N. organs are “very much against the Church.”

Abortion, sexual orientation and gender ideology are the “No. 1 issues pushed by the U.N. bureaucracy,” he added, and so the Vatican needs to understand that “any collaboration on other issues must include understanding the teachings of the Church on these fundamental issues.”
The Holy See source insisted that current collaboration “is not naïve” and praised the fact that Pope Francis’ clear support for the U.N. has “definitely led to increased conversation and coordination.”
 
Recent Collaborations

Examples of recent extensive collaboration the source highlighted have included work on the Global Compact for Migration — a 2018 multilateral U.N. agreement to foster safe, orderly migration; the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change; and grassroots collaboration between Caritas Internationalis and the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the U.N. Development Program. For its part, the U.N. sees the Holy See and the Pope as a vital and useful tool toward accomplishing its multilateral aims, the SDGs in particular. “We need [the Pope’s] moral voice more than ever,” said Guterres after his recent meeting with Francis.

The U.N. also favors the Catholic Church’s “essential networks,” said the Holy See source working with the U.N. system, who pointed to the “increased collaboration” of Bishop Sanchez’s pontifical academy, which has a long history of drawing on the knowledge of non-Catholic experts.

“Much of the confusion comes from those who don’t know what really happens in the negotiation rooms and erroneously think that, if the Holy See in general supports something like the 2030 agenda, it must therefore support all 169 targets,” the source said.

But while that may be the case, professor Stefano Fontana, director of the Cardinal Van Thuan International Observatory on the Social Doctrine of the Church, sees instead a subtle and general surrender to the U.N. mindset. In Jan. 19 comments to the Register, Fontana said that compared to when Cardinal Renato Martino was the Holy See’s permanent observer to the U.N. (1986-2002), when a deliberate effort was made not to use the words “reproductive health” (a term interpreted by U.N. agencies to include abortion and contraception), today “the Holy See uses these expressions.”

Fontana sees this and the Holy See’s increasingly unreserved collaboration with the U.N. as adapting the Catholic faith “to the logic of the world” and to today’s U.N.-promoted “secular religion,” which he describes as a “multireligious society, ecological religion and planned migration.” Issues of the natural moral law such as abortion are no longer considered “of primary importance,” he said.

The change is a consequence, Fontana believes, of the Church today insisting on collaborating with everyone on the grounds that “the truth is born of dialogue and confrontation” — witnessed by the frequent appearances of Sachs and others at the Vatican.
 
‘Human Fraternity’ Initiative

A further contentious development seen by some as indicative of the U.N. and secular influence on the Holy See has been the push toward a U.N.-organized “World Day of Human Fraternity,” which grew out of the Document on Human Fraternity signed in Abu Dhabi last February by Pope Francis and Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand imam of Al-Azhar University.

Holy See officials argue that this does not represent a danger of syncretism but is rather consistent with decades of interreligious dialogue dating back to the Second Vatican Council declaration on the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions, Nostra Aetate. They also say the contentious phrasing in the Abu Dhabi document, that the “plurality and diversity of religions” is “willed by God,” needs to be interpreted as God having “permissively willed” all religions rather than directly willed them.

A similar approach is also seen in two forthcoming events: an international meeting in March called the “Economy of Francesco” in Assisi that will draw together people of different faiths, “inspired by an ideal of fraternity” and a chance to “dream of a new humanism”; and a Vatican-hosted event in support of a Global Alliance on Education, attended by interreligious and secular representatives that aims to overcome “division and antagonism” and promote a “more fraternal humanity.”

Both manifest a U.N.-backed agenda that Bishop Athanasius Schneider, a strong critic of the institution’s anti-life positions, says involves a “relativization of morality and the moral law” and the pursuit of a “political agenda” in the form of a “one-world education,” gender ideology and a “new climate religion.” And the Holy See’s involvement has reached such a level, the auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan, believes, that the Holy See has effectively placed itself under the authority of the U.N., becoming what he called in his recent book Christus Vincit a “daughter house” of the multilateral institution.

“You cannot any more distinguish the language of Holy See from the U.N.,” Bishop Schneider told the Register. “There is no more true Catholic identity of the Gospel with the face of the apostles.”

Fontana views the adoption of such language and the philosophy behind it as a “flattening of ideas” that removes “metaphysical structure” and “doctrinal absoluteness.” “The change is remarkable,” he observed, adding that to believe religions can converge into “certain humanistic objectives leaving aside their respective theologies” is “impossible and dangerous.”
 
75th Anniversary

This year marks the 75th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations, a time when the Holy See is expected to extoll the institution. “We work gladly with this institution, trying to bring a contribution for the good of the world,” Archbishop Gabriele Caccia, the Holy See’s new permanent observer to the U.N., said Jan. 28.

But just as such words of praise are expected to increase, so are those of critics who warn that ever closer alignment with the U.N. agenda is “secularizing” the Catholic faith, in Fontana’s words, and leading it toward globalist ends that are anything but Catholic.

Edward Pentin is the Register’s Rome correspondent.

To the contrary of the concerns of the writers and some of the contributors to the above article, the Pope and the Vatican know exactly what they are doing. They are entering into a political relationship with this globalist institution as they do with all others, for the purpose of controlling and manipulating the same. Their ideas and agendas are sounding more and more alike because of the increasing influence the Vatican has had upon the UN since 1962. It is the same with all political and even non political institutions  which enter into relations with the See of Rome or BAYLON THE GREAT, they are intoxicated with her wine, then manipulated unto her own designs from within. This includes all nations especially the US over the last several decades, Corporations of communication especially the internet, entertainment, sports and you name it. The leaders and backers of all of these institutions have been meeting with the papacy for years now, and look at the direction they are all heading. As usual though, everyone just sits around and scratches there heads wondering, where did all this crap come from. So be it. This world will succumb to strong delusion because they have chosen lies over the truth.
6
Christian Politics Forum / Re: Facebook pulled this ad. But here it is
« Last post by Rella on Yesterday at 18:55:14 »
From my brief research, the Trump campaign used that symbol about 88 times since around June 20th, and they were using it against ANTIFA because it is a symbol ANTIFA used to promote themselves.

But then, how much can we trust what we read on the internet?   ???

Well,not very much.

But...when they manage to pull an ad that had been forwarded and change it...
as they did this one.... tells me there is something there.



Everything, including anonymous forums ...or I should say forums where participants are anonymous is also suspect to trust.
7
Seventh Day Adventist Forum / Re: Mark Of The Beast (on the hand)
« Last post by Amo on Yesterday at 18:20:03 »
With Hobie & Amo, just following the day is the only important thing.  Actually attempting to "keep" the Sabbath, in the actual meaning of the scripture they claim to stand on is not something that interests them at all.  It's just the day that's important.  They simply swap Sunday for Saturday as to when they go to church, and that's as far as an SDA goes when it comes to "keeping" the Sabbath.  They are certainly not avoiding all work, since they drive to church and do all kinds of other stuff that is actually forbidden on the Sabbath, all while claiming to "keep" it.  They cause everyone who has to work at a utility to provide electricity, and gas, and water to their church, as well as service people like the fire department, the police, and medical facilities to have to break the Sabbath so that they can drive to church on Saturday, but that's A-OK, since they are pretending to "keep." The Sabbath.  They can't offer a sacrifice at the Temple, so there is no way they are actually keeping the Sabbath.  But it's nice to be able to tell people you are trying to keep a defunct Mosaic law by simply going to church on Saturday instead of Sunday.

Amo isn't going to touch an explanation of the other Sabbaths.  If he discounts those, which he actually did in his answer to you, then he exposes the falseness of his, and SDA doctrine.  He does expose one particularly nasty component of SDA doctrine, however, and it needs to be pointed out.  Seventh Day Adventists are one of those replacement doctrines that thinks they replace the Jews/Israel as God's chosen people.  When God "restored" the gospel to the SDA church, He just decided to toss the Jews into the dust bin, and forget all about His promises to them, as both a people, and a nation, and now the SDA's get those perks.  Sweet deal, huh?  When you hear people using terms like "spiritual Israel," what they are actually saying is that their group replaces Israel.  Gentiles do not make up some mythical SDA "spiritual Israel."  Gentiles are grafted into Israel.  They don't replace it.  Amo thinks they do.  And he's dead wrong.

What a bunch of twisted crap. The many posts on these threads over many years now completely contradict your above false witness and testimony. I worked for several years in law enforcement and emergency rescue, and the maintenance required for such on God's sabbath without ever breaking the same. It is lawful to do good on the sabbath as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ taught. No one should excuse themselves from works of kindness, necessity, and emergency on the sabbath. Such would itself constitute a violation of the pure and holy purposes and intentions of the sabbath. Though there is nothing wrong with choosing a living that will not involve such situations, or moving on from one that does in order to observe the day undisturbed.
8
Seventh Day Adventist Forum / Re: Mark Of The Beast (on the hand)
« Last post by Amo on Yesterday at 18:06:22 »
3 Resurrections and Amo,

I wish you would take this Sabbath on which day debate down another leg of argument.

I will stay out of this... but why dont you two hash out how the current
system of how we got to our current system of Sunday thru Saturday to begin with.

There is no arguement that God commanded the 7th day to be the Sabbath. But

IT was not because God decided Saturday at sundown to declare...Let there be light after spending a day hovering over His creation of heavens and earth an observing  the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, as the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

No... He declared Let there be light in His own time and I believe without a thought to a day or conscious thought of time for time is non existent to God.

What we do not know is if God had a name for the actual days he worked on the creation.

How can we know that it was,in fact, Saturday at Sundown that God was floating above the waters and was not somehow maybe Tuesday?

We know... The Babylonians named the days after the five planetary bodies known to them (Tuesday through Saturday) and after the Sun and Moon (Sunday and Monday). This custom was later adopted by the Romans. And got incorporated by the Jewish slaves under Babylonian control.

As I recall the Babylonian calendar came into being about 500 BC, give or take a month here or there.....

But there is more to it then that...

Now this excerpt from the following links explains the why for why the Jewish people celebrate the Sabbath as they do... or should.

"We were first commanded to keep Shabbat in the desert shortly after we left Egypt. How did we know when to keep it? In Exodus 16, we are told that during our journey in the desert, manna fell every day except for one—the Shabbat. So what did we eat then? A double portion fell every Friday so that we would have what to eat the next day as well. On the first Friday after the manna began to fall, the people were surprised to see so much manna—double that which they had received on each of the past five days. When they came to ask Moses about this phenomenon, he revealed that the next day would be the Shabbat and that no manna would fall at all.

The actual wording of G‑d's message to Moses and the Jewish People is "See that G‑d has given to you the Shabbat." The Midrash points out that the word used is "see" and not "know." It explains:

This is what G‑d was saying to them: "If the idolaters will come to you and ask, 'Why do you make the Shabbat day on this day?' you will tell them, 'See, the manna does not fall on the Shabbat.'"

For the next 40 years we had a weekly reminder of the Shabbat every time the manna did not fall. Since then, we have continued to keep count and will continue to do so for the rest of time.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1103696/jewish/How-Do-We-Know-Which-Day-is-Shabbat.htm

But it does not explain how they knew when that first Friday/Saturday Sabbath actually occurred or if it truly was Friday/Saturday and not another day.

So any clarity from either of you would be greatly appreciated for all. ::tippinghat::


The Lord Jesus Christ who was and is the creator, and is the Lord of the sabbath as He Himself testified, would have corrected the day if it had been wrong when He came to show us the way. Instead He spent quite a bit of time teaching and addressing its proper observance. The day is correct. As far as your question concerning the change from Saturday to Sunday, go to the following link and read post reply # 32.

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/seventh-day-adventist-forum-(sda)/sabbath-sunday-and-the-abomination-of-desolation/

There are many books addressing the change from Sabbath to Sunday. The link provided gives some information on this rather extensive subject. The bottom line is that the change had and has nothing to do with scriptural teaching. It is wholly extra biblical.
9
Theology Forum / Re: The Land was Promised to Abraham, not Heaven
« Last post by soterion on Yesterday at 17:39:17 »

Forever means forever.   

If God meant for a time limit to be affixed to the deal or for it to be CONDITIONAL upon the people, the Bible would quote such limits and if/then conditions.   For instance, there are a number of promises by God that IF His LAW is obeyed, THEN blessings would accumulate.   IF His LAW was not obeyed, THEN calamity would visit the people.  There is no such limit or condition placed upon the grant of the land to  Israel except in the mind of anti-semitic Jew hating followers of doctrines of demons (Christian & Muslim alike).  On the other hand, those who insist upon perpetrating a lie begin to do so by redefining common words.   Black means white, wrong means right, good is bad and forever isn't really forever - it's temporary.   Bogus thin attempts one and all to change the conversation from truth to a tissue of lies.

Definitions of Biblical terms by uneducated and Biblically illiterate persons are not definitions at all, but are feeble attempts to divert the reader's attention away from God's Word to doctrines of demons and political activists who bend the truth into lies of their own design.

Genesis 17:13.
He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

Everlasting here is the same Hebrew word as forever in Genesis 13:15.

So, does God still sanction and command circumcision in the flesh according to His law? Is it to last forever?

Exodus 40:15.
And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.

Again with everlasting=forever. Is the Aaronic priesthood still the priesthood of God for the people, or did that change with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? Is Christ's priesthood and that of all believers to be set aside because God set up Aaron's to be forever?

Any word must be subject to defining in its context and to how the resulting definition works out in the rest of scripture. If there is a conflict, as above, then we have to realize some words have a wide range of meanings. One cannot reasonably apply the modern day western definition of "forever" to an ancient eastern document in every case it is used and expect a correct understanding of said documents.
10
Christian Politics Forum / Re: Facebook pulled this ad. But here it is
« Last post by soterion on Yesterday at 17:14:03 »
From my brief research, the Trump campaign used that symbol about 88 times since around June 20th, and they were using it against ANTIFA because it is a symbol ANTIFA used to promote themselves.

But then, how much can we trust what we read on the internet?   ???
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10